We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, July 4. 2015

A bad bad war, crazy. I mostly blame Lincoln but, in general, the northern Republicans. Any union ought to be voluntary. Slavery? That was going away anyway in the Western world. Today, we would say "negotiate." Result? 600,000 Americans dead, and a federal government with more power than it was ever intended to possess.

Tragic, all around. Liberia was a good solution and a good recompense, but I am glad for most of the African-American influence in American culture. Better off here than slaves of Moslems in Africa, but better if none of it ever happened.

I have speculated as to how long it would have taken southern plantations to mechanize. Mechanization wasn't completed until the 1940s. Earlier steam traction engines were too costly for most farmers. Affordable tractors arrived in the 1920s but low prices and then the Great Depression retarded the progress.

It does lead one to wonder what would have happened had a CSA been able to import slaves for another 60, 70 or 80 years?

Was the slave population about where it needed to be to support plantation agriculture in 1860 or would we have had a demographic South Africa in the Confederacy if slavery had been viable for most of the next 100 years?

I am left with the impression that hotheads on both sides were spoiling for a fight.

However, I have always wondered what would have happened had the South not fired on Ft. Sumter and waited for the North to fire the first shot? Would secession have succeeded. Were there plans afoot to invade the South before Ft. Sumter?

no, the confederacy wasn't recognized as an independent state, that's why no declaration of war was necessary. if you actually want to or can understand the issue, google "union blockade" for a discussion.

I remember an assignment from about 7th grade. As northerners, we were to write a letter to a southerner explaining our position on the eve of the Civil War. Mine basically said "seeya later, you're economic system will be unworkable soon anyway". If I remember right it was a shocking viewpoint at the time.

"You're [sic] economic system will be unworkable soon anyway." That is a fact and the real cause of the southern problems and discontent were extreme tariffs set upon them by the northern states for manufactured goods. Slavery was a side issue that was used to excite the general population to indignation so that the war could be started with the south as the aggressor.

"Want to wait a hundred years?" Slavery was already on the way out in the antebellum south little by little. If the war had not been forced by Lincoln and cronies, slavery would in a generation or so have passed from the United States with a whimper. Remember, America's first slave holder was a black man. Additionally there were many black slave owners in the antebellum south which is a fact that is whitewashed by today's talking heads and race baiters.

Of course slavery in America is still ongoing with the current welfare state, minimum wages, abortion and such all of which were designed to destroy the black community. But again, those points are not mentioned in the debate.

The abolition of slavery came at a high price not only in monetary and human terms but in governmental terms (beginning of the end of states rights - we're still paying that price). I wish it could have happened for much less, but that didn't seem to be possible.

We now have a system where the producers are the slaves of the welfare state participants. The producers are forced to work to support the non-producers.

No need; both sides were very well-behaved during formal truces. But after Gettysburg, the combattants were very busy; there was still a war of dynamic maneuver being fought.

Both armies hurried from the area after the battle sputtered out on July 3. Lee tried to get back to Virginia before being annihilated by the pursuing Army of the Potomac, but Meade was in no huge rush and the Army of Northern Virginia, instead of being trapped on the wrong side of the flooded and swollen Potomic, survived to rack up more piles of dead bodies at Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, The Wilderness, Petersburg... It's been popularly believed, and with good reason, that Meade missed one of history's golden opportunities to end a miserable and destructive war with a bit of energetic marching.

The big Fourth of July event during the Civil War was the surrender of Vicksburg to Ulysses Grant in 1863. It was no accident; Gen. Pemberton thought he'd get a better deal from Grant by surrendering on the 4th. In the event, Grant paroled the Confederate prisoners, expecting the exhausted troops to trudge home. Unfortunately the Confederates just redeployed them elsewhere, and some fought at Chattanooga, where they lost again. The dismal result was that there were no big prisoner exchanges after that; prisoners were stuck in that era's miserable POW camps.

When Gettysburg is examined in classrooms, Meade's lack of pursuit is often discussed while the question of the Army of Northern Virginia not moving on Lee's timetable is overlooked. Had the Army of Northern Virginia moved on schedule, they would have bypassed Little Round Top before reinforcements arrived. Meade would be outflanked in open field and would have been in a poor position to defend. There would have been no Picket's Charge and the casualties minimal for both sides. Again, all table talk.

And how much foreign influence would have been exerted by Britain, France, Spain, Russia and others if the country had been split in two?

Everything West of the Appalachians was basically in play, and from I've read I'm not sure that the future of the Southern Ports from Wilmington, NC over thru NOLA would have been left entirely up to the Confederate states. A lot of money was made at those ports and nothing excites a government like the thought of easy money.

the founders should have negotiated four score and whatever years before laying the foundation for 600,000 war dead.

anyone who says the war wasn't necessary because slavery was on the way out is saying that slavery would have ended when is was no longer profitable to keep slaves. and not one day longer, I swear, freedom is only 10 or 100 years away. field hands, presumably, because there's always a need for low no paid domestic help and someone's going to have to shovel coal and oil gears. and don't count on becoming citizens or enjoying any constitutional protections, but least you won't be a slave.

that's morally bankrupt, indefensible, and at best asshatted childish bullshit and I'm being charitable.

someone please tell me I didn't read a comment to the effect that another generation of slavery would be OK.

I'm positive your God punished you for this, I know Lincoln thought so. I read the crap on threads like this I'm embarrassed to be an American.

Dave: Slavery was a side issue that was used to excite the general population to indignation so that the war could be started with the south as the aggressor.

Um, not according to the Declared Causes of Secesson. The Confederates happened to made clear their reasons: slavery and white supremacy.

QUOTE:

Mississippi Declaration of Secession: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.

QUOTE:

Speech of Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens: Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.

And we have this perversion of the Declaration of Independence:

QUOTE:

Texas Declaration of Secession: We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

The big push was the tariffs. The south couldn't purchase manufactured goods at reasonable prices which could be paid for by agricultural means. Additionally, the vast majority of the tariffs were used to expand the north's ability to manufacture and transport goods.

Virginia states the issue more clearly. The Southern slave holding states was the popular means of identifying those states whom the tariffs hurt the most. SoCal would be similar in today's vernacular.
"The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitition were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:"

The Virginia Ordinance of Secession mentions "slaveholding States", but not tariffs. It's rather difficult to read "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery," or {the Confederacy's} "foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition," as having anything to do with tariffs.

Which is why the South seceded. The population and political power of the North was burgeoning. Eventually, abolitionists would have had the ability to end slavery by democratic means. Lincoln knew that only by keeping the Union together could democracy be ensured, and slavery ended.

There's little doubt slavery was ending in the South with or without the Civil War. The destruction of property and deaths over this issue - a good issue to fight over, mind you, though it's worth noting slavery was legal in some less advanced nations, particularly some Arab ones, until 2007 - probably exceeded the costs of letting it sputter out on its own.

The Confederacy paid their black soldiers on an equal scale (though a debased currency that was essentially worthless) to its white soldiers while the North paid them less. Sure, the cause was noble, but it wasn't exactly 'fair', was it?

The Confederacy was also planning to end slavery, and it likely would've ended well before the 1900's. The cost of slavery was very high. Remember, even bad slave owners had to pay for housing, food, clothing, and bounties for escaped slaves, as well as pay taskmasters to oversee the slaves. People think slavery was "free labor" but that is far from the truth.

Was the war worth fighting? Depends on your point of view. I tend to think most wars are not worth fighting. The destruction of property and lives more than offsets any perceived gains. There are a few wars, possibly WWII, which do seem worthwhile. We were a better nation when we proclaimed neutrality (though we've rarely ever been neutral in much of anything, at least our costs of defense were lower).

I'm on the fence regarding the Civil War, though. I do tend to think the North, and Lincoln, were spoiling for a fight, despite their claims otherwise. Lincoln knew a resupply of Fort Sumter would ignite a powder keg, and did it anyway. He was hoping to call what he thought was a bluff - though it wasn't much of a bluff considering how quickly the South had mobilized.

Lincoln was also aware he was working with questionable resources at the start. His primary general, Winfield Scott, was old and not very up-to-date. His most experienced (logistically and capably) was McLellan, was not especially fond of the Union's position due to his rather pro-slavery stance and slight distaste for the particulars which had led up to the war. Even so, McLellan was probably the best and most able at the time - though his dawdling cost him on many occasions. I happen to think he had no interest in winning the war, and was more interested in dragging it out to support his own ambitions as a potential contestant in a future election against a (hopefully) embarrassed Lincoln. Clearly, that did not play out.

Lincoln tended to think the best of people until he felt they were not supporting him. But he was steadfast in his views, hiding his firm hand in a false form of 'collaboration' - seeking to draw people into his point of view and abandoning them if they stuck to their own views. It's a popular form of 'collaboration' used today in corporations - though one I find distasteful.

I think Lincoln also wanted to aggregate more control over what he felt was an economy which needed guidance. He was uncomfortable with the complexity of markets and usually disturbed by opposing views to his own. His calm demeanor hid much of this, and he tended to say he was fine with the South maintaining slavery even as he sought to remove it, seeing it correctly as a stain on the nation's Constitution. He chose poorly in his choice to rid the nation of this stain.

There's little doubt slavery was ending. Many historians and economists today recognize this. But one can only guess at what the balance can be, or should have been, in terms of lives. Would 40-60 more years of slavery been a good trade-off for saving the nation from greater centralization, hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of dollars of destruction, and a blurring of the lines in what makes us a Union (Civil War vs. War of Northern Aggression is still a sticky discussion down South)?

I happen to think both are sins, but people will disagree about which sin was greater. I would have voted to maintain the status quo, if my current knowledge was available back then. But it wasn't, to any great extent.

It's like asking if the witch on trial should have been declared a witch. Knowing what I know today - absolutely not. But if I was alive back then, it's hard to for me to say no, in all likelihood I'd have said yes. So I probably would have supported war were I alive in 1860, in the North, as a Republican. It was a moral question at the time which dominated.

Today, with the benefit of greater knowledge and hindsight, I can say with a considerable level of assured faith in authorities on the topic that it was a very, very bad idea.

Of wars of the last 400 yrs, the US Civil war and WWI rank at the top of not only not merely un-necesaary but counterproductive conflicts. The Treaty of Versailles sowed the seeds of a bitter harvest 20 years later. And yes, slavery was indefensible, but where was it not practiced in some form or another before western europeans outlawed the practice? In the USA, slavery would probably not have endured into the 20th century, whether the USA had a civil war or not.

The conditions and the development of the Spanish American world invite, as already mentioned, certain parallels with the American South. These two slave societies have interpreted their history in a similar way; or rather, they have required the same self-justification. In 1816, the fledgling North American republic imposed tariffs to protect the development of its budding industry against the massive influx of English manufactured imports, The most ardent among the protectionists were the Virginians and the North and South Carolinians, who felt that with their inexpensive cotton and cheaper manpower, the Southern states would become textile producers able to rival Manchester.

Barely fifteen years after Southern Congressmen such as Calhoun and Lowndes of South Carolina had established themselves as effective spokesmen for tariffs on goods bought from Great Britain, the South began its subsequent failure [to industrialize] by charging that protectionism had been invented by the North as a means of enriching itself at the expense of the South. Southern leaders stirred up their audiences by claiming that of every hundred bales of cotton sold in Boston or New York, forty had been stolen from the South. The argument became more heated, and the North found itself charged with having accumulated capital in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth by defrauding the South through financial trickery. One contemporary writer says "When they (the Southerners)see the flourishing villages of New England, they cry, 'We pay for all this.' "A myth was manufactured that attributed Northern prosperity to the South's paralysis, and vice versa. Southerners went to war in 1860 quite convinced that if they succeeded in breaking their dependence on the North, not only would they prosper miraculously; the abhorred Yankees, deprived of raw materials and the southern market for their manufactured goods, would be condemned to an economic crisis as well.

Thus, well before the birth of Hobson, Hilferdig, and Lenin, the 'Third World' arguments had been invented by Southern slaveholders.

In 1816, the South was for tariffs, believing that proximity to cotton coupled with cheap power from the falls along the Piedmont and also with cheap slave labor would enable the South to produce cotton cloth. Even with these advantages compared to New England, the South could not compete with New England cotton mills. First for tariffs, then against tariffs. Just like states rights: against states rights and for enforcement of federal law when it comes to fugitive slaves in the North, but for states rights after Lincoln gets elected on a "don't expand slavery" platform.

Anyone who has read the South Carolina Declaration of Secession would agree with you. Sarc, sarc, sarc.
In 1864, Patrick Cleburne, the Confederate General and immigrant from Ireland, did propose emancipating slaves and enlisting them in the Confederate Army. His proposal went nowhere.
At the eleventh hour, in November 1864, Jefferson Davis did propose giving slaves their freedom in exchange for serving in the Confederate Army. But it was a PROPOSAL which went nowhere. A PROPOSAL IS NOT A PLAN.
From the above link:

QUOTE:

From “Confederate Emancipation” by Bruce Levine
“Once unleashed, especially in newspapers, the idea of slave soldiers and Confederate emancipation met fierce opposition. Critics repeatedly labeled any form of the plan an “insult” to white soldiers and “embarrassing” (p. 41, 48) before the world. Some raised the specters of slave revolt and miscegenation, while other critics rehearsed familiar proslavery arguments about the inherent inferiority of black people, and the benign, natural character of slavery.
Plantation mistress, Catherine Edmondston, condemned any attempt to arm slaves because it would “destroy at one blow the highest jewel in the crown.” “Our independence,” chimed in North Carolina governor, Zebulon Vance, “is chiefly desirable for the preservation of our political institutions, the principle of which is slavery.” And one Brig. Gen. spoke for most Confederate officers when he announced: “if slavery is to be abolished then I take no more interest in our fight” (p. 53, 56-58).

Yes, yes Bulldog, tell us how the Confederacy was planning to end slavery. Just like the Confederacy had a secret atomic bomb to drop on Washington DC.

Bulldog: and it[slavery] likely would've ended well before the 1900's.
Ended voluntarily and peacefully, as a result of market forces? Tell me another one. Or as they say in Venezuela, "Tell me another cowboy story."[Dime/decime otro de vaqueros.] If mechanization would have made slavery and hand labor uneconomic, it would have been a long, long wait. By 1959 Cotton harvesting in the South was still primarily done by hand.

In 1860, cotton production represented the big money use of slaves. The above stats, showing that by 1959, most of the cotton harvest was picked by hard in the former states of the Confederacy, does not indicate that there would have been economic forces that would have ended slavery before 1900. Not at all. The question arises: was the Great Migration out of the South caused by mechanization of cotton harvesting? This article on the Mechanical Cotton Picker shows that the Great Migration preceded mechanization, and thus spurred mechanization. Which also suggest that absent the Great Migration, cotton mechanization would have been even further delayed.

A first cousin of my mother's, who became a schoolteacher, told me of hand picking cotton when she was a child.

As usual, nothing I wrote was wrong - but just didn't fit your meme, so rather than deny any of it, you simply refurbished the facts to suit your needs.

Time to get a new job, Dick. Does it matter when the Confederacy authorized black soldiers? No, it doesn't, especially as they were paid at scale. Freedom is an interesting side note, but hardly an indictment of the fact that this was authorized at all.
I never said they didn't go to war over slavery - I merely pointed out the plan to get rid of it was, in fact, in the works as the war progressed - and sped up as it became clear it was not going to end well. But these are facts that don't fit your meme.

You say it would have hung on for a long time in some states. Depends on what you mean by a long time. I stated well before 1900 - so is 35 years a long time? Why yes, it is....but I could see it ending before that in many states. So, again, facts are a problem for you to deal with when they don't fit your meme.

I never disputed any of the facts you listed. I simply made legitimate points which are all true. But you love to play misdirection and you just hate little bugs in your system, don't you?

It's also worth noting the North did not start the war to end slavery. While the South seceded to preserve it, market forces (willingness of foreign nations to recognize their government's legitimacy) eventually caused them to re-think their position. In fact, market forces were undermining their position for several years prior to their secession.

Just because the market doesn't work in a timely fashion, when we want, where we want, doesn't mean it is failing. It simply means there are forces at work which require many other considerations.

The very fact that several Union states were slave-holding states (all border states), and the fact several Union states which had abolished slavery still had slaves (most grandfathered in) and the fact that Grant's wife held slaves through most of the war (if they hadn't left of their own volition, though Grant had released his only slave in 1859) while Lee and Johnston did not even hold slaves and found the institution repugnant is really all you need to know about how bizarre the whole slave issue was.

While it was THE central issue, the catalyst, the prime motivation, it cannot be denied that the right of the Federal government to pass law which overrode state law (a Constitutional fact which is, today, considered a quaint artifact), often in cases where it was clear political favor was being played out (taxes which regularly hampered Southern agricultural product sales, but benefited Northern factories seeking cheap Southern resources), meant there was an over-arching issue of states' rights in play. It certainly was not THE SINGLE issue or even the primary one. But it definitely was an issue, and one which many people are capable of using to claim it as the reason (since, after all, the North didn't really care if the South kept slaves, nor did Lincoln - he had stated many times he was willing to let the South keep slavery intact and did not press hard for the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863, when he had a few key victories to embellish his political position - making him a rather cynical player in the whole drama).

But facts are facts. The Confederacy did, indeed, have a plan to abolish slavery in order to improve their position. It may have come late, but so did the Emancipation Proclamation. Both of these political moves were designed to improve the positions of the institutions which passed them. Cynical? Yes. But all politics is cynical.

No, Liberia was not a good solution or recompense. Review its history if you doubt me. It was effectively a colonization of Africa by an alien tribe. And the mortality rate was pretty high--after word got out you'd have had to force people to get on the boats.

If you follow the money the north, championed by Lincoln's election was spoiling to obtain more of the south's assets. Just as today's wars seem to be about stopping terrorism or containing Communism and such, there are always behind the scenes money deals.

The war was forced by Lincoln and the end was that the south's monetary and real property ended up in the hands of nefarious individuals -- some carpetbaggers and some behind the screen. Not to mention all of the northern tax dollars gained by contractors supporting the war effort. That is similar to various green schemes today which gathered huge sums of tax dollars from the US only to fold and leave nothing behind.

At any rate, the issue of antebellum slavery is behind us. Now how about addressing the current slavery issues of today such as welfare (designed to destroy black families), minimum wage, abortion (started to destroy blacks), not to mention the child sex slaves pushed by the drug cartels right here in the states.

I've been all around the world and admit that while America has done bad things, I am still an American and refuse to bow to the current PC driven agenda. Happy 4th of July!

The very fact that several Union states were slave-holding states (all border states), and the fact several Union states which had abolished slavery still had slaves (most grandfathered in) and the fact that Grant's wife held slaves through most of the war (if they hadn't left of their own volition, though Grant had released his only slave in 1859) while Lee and Johnston did not even hold slaves and found the institution repugnant is really all you need to know about how bizarre the whole slave issue was.

I have a Gordian Knot for you. A pretty good indicator of the support for secession in the slave-owning states was the proportion of slaves in the population. The greater the proportion of slaves in the population, the greater the support for secession.
Read Freehling's books, especially The South Vs. The South.

Do tell. The Constitution forbade taxes on exports, which meant that there was no inhibitor tax on the South exporting its agricultural produce, as it did with most of its cotton, if it didn't like the prices the New England cotton mills offered. What tax policy inhibited SALES of Southern agricultural products? Inquiring minds want to know.

As far as I know, the taxes the South objected to were tariffs on imported manufactured goods, which is more than a little ironic, insofar that the South supported the same tariffs in 1816, in the mistaken belief that behind a tariff wall the South would be able to construct cotton mills that could then compete with those of New England. When the South discovered its cotton mills could not outperform those of New England, the South then wanted revocation of tariffs.

It is really a great pity, since you all agree that slavery is a bad thing, that you cannot agree to cease the argumentation between yourselves and direct your energies against an extant and highly visible present day manifestation: ISIS/ISIL (Call it what you will).
Here, for your detestation, is slavery in its most heinous form.

Donny and Zachriel have presented data, the rest have merely repeated myths. Southern revisionism cherry-picks bits of history and attempts to weave a spell. Claiming that the other guy was "spoiling for a fight" is irrelevant, and the sort of excuse criminals give. Guessing in retrospect when slavery might have ended is evasive.

The north fought to preserve the union, because it believed if the country fragmented, it was vulnerable to other nations. Perhaps that was not true, but it was the belief. One can even argue that this was not a justified opinion, and secession should have been allowed. But attributing confederate actions to jedi mind-tricks from the north is craven. Slavery was secondary, but became increasingly important over the course of the war. Mind-reading about the importance of NOLA to the north overlooks the first fact of the war: the north did not secede. As above, slavery was absolutely central to the states seceding, and they could not have expressed it any more plainly. The border states waffled, but still picked a side.

Southerners pride themselves on the cultural value of courage, which they do indeed exhibit in the physical sense far better than northerners. Yet they persist in moral cowardice to this day, unable to look in the mirror of history. Grow a pair.

"Ratification of the Constitution made the Civil War inevitable," my wife said several years ago. I would add that all of U.S. history is the story of struggle for supremacy between Virginia and Massachusetts. Judging by the comments above, nothing has changed.

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: